JUDGMENT Pritam Pal, J.:-These aforesaid two bail applications brought by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) arise out of one and the same FIR bearing No.100 dated 29.7.2008, under Sections 406/498-A, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, City Ropar. Hence, these two petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Without going into any further details, suffice it to say that marriage between accused – petitioner Major Tanvir Buttar, a serving Army Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner-husband”) was solemnized with complainant – Kiran Buttar, respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) on 1.11.2003 at Ropar. Out of this wedlock, a female child was born on 24.8.2007. One year after the solemnization of marriage till the complainant was blessed with the aforesaid female child, all the petitioners used to harass and mal-treat her on account of demands of dowry and cash for the purchase of a flat. Not only that, she was also given beatings by them. Ultimately, the complainant was also sent to her matrimonial house in the month of October, 2007, where also she was scolded and taunted for giving birth to a female child. The complainant was turned-out from her matrimonial house and thereupon, she started living at her parental house at Ropar. On these aforesaid allegations, FIR No. 100 dated 29.7.2008, under Sections 406/498-A, 34 IPC was registered at Police Station, City Ropar. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the father of petitioner-Maj. Tanvir Buttar also retired as Lt. Colonel from the Army. He is 64 years of age. There was friendship between petitioner - Lt. Col. Sant Parkash Singh Buttar and father of the complainant, who was also an Army Officer and on that count, the marriage was solemnized in a very simple manner at Ropar. He further denied the allegation of any demand of dowry or acts of maltreatment, as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in fact, much prior to the registration of this case, petitioner-husband had obtained a loan of Rs.15.00 lacs from the Army authorities for the purpose of a flat and as such, there was no question of making any demand of money for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in fact, much prior to the registration of this case, petitioner-husband had obtained a loan of Rs.15.00 lacs from the Army authorities for the purpose of a flat and as such, there was no question of making any demand of money for the same. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on file a sanction order issued by Army authorities, dated 21.2.2008, for the grant of House-Building Loan to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs. Not only that, the Army authorities have already granted 27.5% of pay and allowances per month to the complainant and female child, from the salary of petitioner-husband. In this regard, a copy of order of Army Authorities dated 17.12.2008 has also been placed on the file. It was then also argued that in fact, the complainant had no occasion to stay with the parents of petitioner-husband (petitioners in Crl. Misc No. 24513-M of 2008) inasmuch as, immediately after the marriage, she was taken by him at the place of his posting and most of the time, she stayed with him. Therefore, there was no question of any harassment to her at the hands of parents-in-law of the complainant. An insurance policy is also stated to have been provided to the complainant by the petitioner-husband. After putting forth the aforesaid points of arguments, counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the question of retaining dowry articles or gold ornaments by any of the petitioners does not arise. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and Senior counsel appearing for the complainant rebutted the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners and then made reference to the allegations levelled in the FIR, Annexure P/3. It was then also vehemently argued that here in the instant case, gold ornaments of the complainant are yet to be recovered from the accused-petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail under Section 438 of the Code. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the complainant also relied upon Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra JT 1995(9) SC 165; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal JT 2005(2) SC 548; Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, [2008(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1743] : 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 491; and Mahesh Chandra V. State of U.P. and others (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 196. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the law laid-down in the aforesaid authorities cited by learned counsel for the complainant. 6. Here in the instant case, all the accused-petitioners have already joined the investigation. However, during the course of arguments, it was revealed by learned State counsel that gold ornaments are yet to be recovered from the petitioners, whereas, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, all the gold ornaments were taken back by the complainant, when she had left for her parental house. At this juncture, a query was put to the learned State counsel regarding the details of gold ornaments. Thereupon, it was stated that the value of gold ornaments is worth Rs.3.00 lacs. It is also to add here that on October 20, 2008, when accused-petitioner Major Tanvir Buttar, husband of the complainant, was granted interim-bail, parties had also agreed to get rid-off each other in case a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs, as mentioned in the said order, is arranged by the petitioner-husband for payment to the complainant. However, that settlement could not be finally agreedupon between the parties. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner-husband had already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the complainant, much prior to registration of FIR in the present case. Now, a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is also stated to be pending against the petitioner-husband. 7. As argued by learned counsel for the parties, discussed above, in context with the recovery and retention of gold ornaments, at this stage, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said as to what are those gold ornaments/items and what is the exact value thereof. After investigation, challan of this case is also yet to be presented in the trial Court. 8. Thus, taking an over-all view of the facts and circumstances of these cases and the law laid-down in the aforecited authorities, the orders dated 20.10.2008 and 19.09.2008 passed in both the above mentioned petitions, whereby the petitioners were granted interim-bail, are made absolute till the expiry of 10 days after the challan is presented before the trial Court or till regular bail application of the petitioners is disposed of by it (trial Court), whichever is earlier. In the meantime, taking into consideration the claim of the parties regarding gold ornaments, the petitioners are directed to furnish a bank-guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) as a tentative cost of the gold ornaments before the trial Court, within 10 days of presentation of the challan, the payment of which would be subject to the out-come of the trial of this case. Both these petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ----------------